Legal Opinion

Dobbins v. Mendoza

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided October 16, 1997No. 15611-7-IIIPublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Schttltheis, A.C.J.

— In this action to foreclose a real estate contract, a default judgment was entered after service of process by publication. The court initially vacated the default order and judgment for lack of due diligence in locating the defendants, then reversed itself on reconsideration and reinstated the default order and judgment. Maria DeJesus Mendoza contends the judgment is void because Margaret Dobbins did not use readily available public information in county tax and irrigation district records that could have made personal service possible. We agree and reverse.

By real…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Grannis v. OrdeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  2. Allstate Insurance v. KhaniCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1994
  3. Brenner v. Port of BellinghamCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1989
  4. D'Autremont v. Anderson Iron Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  5. Painter v. OlneyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1984

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. State v. BreazealeWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. BreazealeWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  3. SKAMANIA CTY. v. Columbia River Gorge Com'nWashington Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Dobbins v. MendozaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1997
  5. Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 2001

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API